yeah. i'm not 100% sure either. On the one hand i think it's still extremely wasteful and resources and time could be better used somewhere else but compared to the alternative it seems to be a step in the right direction. I also have to admit again i'm still even close to 100% on thinking this through but with no other factors considered (health for instance) i don't think i would have a problem eating this as a vegan.

So they're using regular chickens they're just lobotomizing them so they don't suffer during processing?

I can't say I understand it in depth enough but it seems like they go through the normal birth and then suffer through a lobotomy before this procedure saves them some pain at the end. Is that right? A step in the right direction I guess.

FYI, some of the comments in various online forums suggest that this might be a publicity stunt by an AR / vegan person, rather than anything "real".

But on the assumption it's real, I would say yeah it's probably better for the chickens than the way things are now. And as for removing part of the brain, consider that it might be possible to introduce chemicals into the eggs or the hen as she is producing the egg to cause the resulting chicken to be without much of a brain. It happens as a genetic anomaly already, though the animals generally don't live very long. If they could chemically lobotomize the chickens, that would be ideal. Then the chicken would never have had much of a brain in the first place, and there would be no need for surgery. That could reduce costs and suffering. A win-win.

Though, I'd much rather see people "get it" and just go vegan instead.

This article talks more about this. And as it turns out, it's not a "vegan / pro-AR" stunt, I don't think. The architect says he can never be vegan.

His main point is that the concept of animal welfare is inherently in conflict with the process of turning animals into food. And therefore, since "welfare" implies "ethics", we then need to be able to eliminate ethics completely, but do it in an ethically acceptable way. Which is a pretty smart and innovative realization, in my opinion.

From the article:

"I think it is time we stopped using the term 'animal' when referring to the precursor of the meat that ends up on our plates. Animals are things we keep in our homes and watch on David Attenborough programs. 'Animals' bred for consumption are crops and agricultural products like any other. We do not, and cannot, provide adequate welfare for these agricultural products and therefore welfare should be removed entirely.
"

>"...We do not, and cannot, provide adequate welfare for these agricultural products and therefore welfare should be removed entirely.
>"

What a load of crap.

"Cannot"? More like "will not"!!

Each time someone eats, they are making a decision. Unlike water or oxygen, animal flesh is not something crucial to our survival. Yet here, animal slaughter is defended as though one would suddenly shrivel up and die if they no longer had access to a freaking chicken McNugget. People are simply unwilling to change their habits and will continue to justify the horrid system of animal slaughter, either through mechanisms such as this, or with asinine warm fuzzies like "Oh, well it was organic and free-range, and I know the farmer. This chicken had the BEST chicken life EVER!!! And I took it away!!! It was DELICIOUS!!!"

(While I acknowledge that the latter system is far less abusive than conventional methods, it is still wrong and unnecessary.)

I don't agree with the idea proposed in this article, by any means, but I do think it sheds light on animal welfare. It seems that people are slowly awakening to the cruelty that exists in factory farming.

Oh, and I am fully aware that I don't bring anything to the table here (i.e., a better solution)... Just fury. Lots and lots of fury.

Couldn't agree more, Karen. And fury can be a positive force, depending on what you do with it.

"Can't vs. won't"... That's just a philosophical abstraction. The fact of the matter is that people have a disconnect with regards to "food" animals. They don't think of them the same way we think of companion animals, like dogs and cats. They love animals. They also love meat. Disconnect. Divide by zero.

And so what the architect author came up with is a perfectly rational solution to a fundamentally irrational problem. I personally think it's a pretty good solution. The only thing I'd change about it is to use genetically modified chickens that are hatched without most of their brains, so that no surgery is required. Of course, a perfect solution would be if everyone just went vegetarian, but that's not going to happen, That is, not until meat becomes so expensive only the rich could afford it. Which may actually happen in our lifetimes.

>And so what the architect author came up with is a perfectly rational solution to a fundamentally irrational problem.

Exactly.

As for gmo chickens, I agree it would be much better for them if no surgery were required. But however beneficial it may be to the chickens, I refuse to support genetically modified anything as a food source. It's a slippery slope. And Monsanto would probably be the first to patent brainless chickens.

I don't share your fears about GMO. There may be some negative consequences, so we should talk about those rather than just dismissing an entire technology out of fear.

Throughout history, beneficial advances in technology have always resulted in fear and panic. But like I said about "fury", fear can be directed in positive ways. In science, fears lead to investigation and analysis. That's a very positive thing.

You know what's funny? On the web, I recently posted my comment about growing GMO'd chickens without brains, and someone actually replied something like, "But, I worry that the chickens will get loose and breed out of control in the wild. It could have disastrous ecological effects!" Then I had to remind him, "Ummm, these would be chickens without brains. They're not going anywhere." Hehe.

Clearly people are aware that GMO'd stuff has the danger of "getting loose" in the wild. So that's a common fear people have. It's a meme, actually. And it's not necessarily irrational. I'm just asking that people think about this stuff before having any knee jerk reactions to it, that's all. That goes for all GMO'd stuff.

Monsanto is definitely doing some bad stuff, usually bad business practices and not enough experimentation before they go into production. They're also doing some good things. I personally think this is a problem best suited for regulation. The world governments need to start building an infrastructure of regulatory agencies to oversee this industry, and give them the teeth needed to control these companies and the funding needed for enforcement.